On mass shootings...
 

On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:59:56 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/4/2015 10:31 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:17:29 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

...the satirical on-line pub, The Onion, runs the following piece in its
entirety, changing only the dateline and the number of killed and
injured, because the story is always the same:



ROSEBURG, OR—In the hours following a violent rampage in (southwestern
Oregon) in which a lone attacker killed (nine individuals and seriously
injured seven others), citizens living in the only country where this
kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Thursday that
there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a
terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s
nothing anyone can do to stop them,� said Ohio resident Lindsay Bennett,
echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who
reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass
shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20
times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed
nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything
that was going to keep this guy from snapping and killing a lot of
people if that’s what he really wanted.� At press time, residents of the
only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass
shootings have occurred every month for the past six years were
referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.�

- - -

It's the Fretwell-Herring-W'hine-FlaTrash response, immortalized by the
Onion. "We can't do nuttin' about this, honey!"


Very stupid. Everyone knows that the passage of a lot more laws would stop the
problem. Just look at Chicago! Very stringent laws have almost completely stopped the
shooting deaths there. Remarkable.

What we need is one law that says, "It is unlawful for any individual in the United
States to possess a personal firearm."

Require all firearms be turned in to the government.


Do you think that would reduce the killings in this country?


Yup...

... and that's where we are heading unless the hard core 2nd Ammendment
clingers don't open their eyes and minds and become willing to discuss
and consider gun control laws that fit contemporary times. To continue
to say "nothing will work" and be satisfied with the status quo is
eventually going to force the issue.


Yup, we would just need to trim 4 or 5 amendments off of the Bill of
Rights.

Wasn't that one reason why we had the 2d amendment in the first place?

On mass shootings...
 

On Sun, 04 Oct 2015 12:38:03 -0400,
wrote:

On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:59:56 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Require all firearms be turned in to the government.


Do you think that would reduce the killings in this country?


Yup...

... and that's where we are heading unless the hard core 2nd Ammendment
clingers don't open their eyes and minds and become willing to discuss
and consider gun control laws that fit contemporary times. To continue
to say "nothing will work" and be satisfied with the status quo is
eventually going to force the issue.

===

A classic case of the cure being worse than the disease. Once more, I
don't believe you can solve a social problem with the legal system. It
didn't work with prohibition, and it's not working with the war on
drugs. I won't go into detail here but there are lots of other ways
to commit mass mayhem without using guns at all. Look no further than
the Boston Marathon.

We need pressure cooker control!

On mass shootings...
 

On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 11:15:17 -0500, Justan Olphart
wrote:

On 10/4/2015 11:38 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:59:56 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Require all firearms be turned in to the government.


Do you think that would reduce the killings in this country?


Yup...

... and that's where we are heading unless the hard core 2nd Ammendment
clingers don't open their eyes and minds and become willing to discuss
and consider gun control laws that fit contemporary times. To continue
to say "nothing will work" and be satisfied with the status quo is
eventually going to force the issue.

===

A classic case of the cure being worse than the disease. Once more, I
don't believe you can solve a social problem with the legal system. It
didn't work with prohibition, and it's not working with the war on
drugs. I won't go into detail here but there are lots of other ways
to commit mass mayhem without using guns at all. Look no further than
the Boston Marathon.


Ban pressure cookers and knapsaks.

===

The list of potentially dangerous every day items goes on a long way.

On mass shootings...
 

On 10/4/2015 12:38 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:59:56 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Require all firearms be turned in to the government.


Do you think that would reduce the killings in this country?


Yup...

... and that's where we are heading unless the hard core 2nd Ammendment
clingers don't open their eyes and minds and become willing to discuss
and consider gun control laws that fit contemporary times. To continue
to say "nothing will work" and be satisfied with the status quo is
eventually going to force the issue.

===

A classic case of the cure being worse than the disease. Once more, I
don't believe you can solve a social problem with the legal system. It
didn't work with prohibition, and it's not working with the war on
drugs. I won't go into detail here but there are lots of other ways
to commit mass mayhem without using guns at all. Look no further than
the Boston Marathon.


Understood but horrific as it was, there are far fewer Boston Marathons
when compared to mass shootings using guns.

On mass shootings... an answer
 

On 10/4/2015 12:47 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:17:29 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

It's the Fretwell-Herring-W'hine-FlaTrash response, immortalized by the
Onion. "We can't do nuttin' about this, honey!"

I put my opinion about this and it was lost in the noise.

We should be teaching everyone to FIGHT BACK.
If everyone in that room scattered and immediately started throwing
everything they could pick up, at the shooter, he would be too busy
ducking to shoot and they could take him down.

There is no down side. The ONLY way he can kill them all is if they
stand there patiently and wait their turn.

One unarmed guy tried to "fight back" in the latest shootings and he got
shot 7 times. Fortunately he survived.

I think more lives are saved by following protocol ... meaning
people move into a secure area, lock the door, shut off the lights and
stay quiet.



Example?

Airline hijacking. We have not really had one since the passengers
figured out they can fight back. If they had have acted sooner, they
would have saved the plane in Pennsylvania
The leaky TSA process really has little to do with it. (97% failure
rate on their own test)
The fact that the hijacker will be beat to a bloody pulp does.
These days if someone just gets a little frisky, passengers take him
down.

The reason is the same, this is not a robbery where giving up some
money will save you. You have to understand the guy is there to kill
you and the only chance you have is to be a hard target.

On mass shootings... an answer
 

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/4/2015 12:47 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:17:29 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

It's the Fretwell-Herring-W'hine-FlaTrash response, immortalized by the
Onion. "We can't do nuttin' about this, honey!"

I put my opinion about this and it was lost in the noise.

We should be teaching everyone to FIGHT BACK.
If everyone in that room scattered and immediately started throwing
everything they could pick up, at the shooter, he would be too busy
ducking to shoot and they could take him down.

There is no down side. The ONLY way he can kill them all is if they
stand there patiently and wait their turn.

One unarmed guy tried to "fight back" in the latest shootings and he got
shot 7 times. Fortunately he survived.

I think more lives are saved by following protocol ... meaning
people move into a secure area, lock the door, shut off the lights and
stay quiet.



Example?

Airline hijacking. We have not really had one since the passengers
figured out they can fight back. If they had have acted sooner, they
would have saved the plane in Pennsylvania
The leaky TSA process really has little to do with it. (97% failure
rate on their own test)
The fact that the hijacker will be beat to a bloody pulp does.
These days if someone just gets a little frisky, passengers take him
down.

The reason is the same, this is not a robbery where giving up some
money will save you. You have to understand the guy is there to kill
you and the only chance you have is to be a hard target.




And most of the nine killed, were asked their religion and then shot.
Might be better off fighting back. If you get shot, you are more likely to
survive, as he can not aim as well.

On mass shootings...
 

On 10/4/15 1:08 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:59:56 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/4/2015 10:31 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:17:29 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

...the satirical on-line pub, The Onion, runs the following piece in its
entirety, changing only the dateline and the number of killed and
injured, because the story is always the same:



ROSEBURG, OR—In the hours following a violent rampage in (southwestern
Oregon) in which a lone attacker killed (nine individuals and seriously
injured seven others), citizens living in the only country where this
kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Thursday that
there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a
terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s
nothing anyone can do to stop them,� said Ohio resident Lindsay Bennett,
echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who
reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass
shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20
times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed
nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything
that was going to keep this guy from snapping and killing a lot of
people if that’s what he really wanted.� At press time, residents of the
only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass
shootings have occurred every month for the past six years were
referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.�

- - -

It's the Fretwell-Herring-W'hine-FlaTrash response, immortalized by the
Onion. "We can't do nuttin' about this, honey!"


Very stupid. Everyone knows that the passage of a lot more laws would stop the
problem. Just look at Chicago! Very stringent laws have almost completely stopped the
shooting deaths there. Remarkable.

What we need is one law that says, "It is unlawful for any individual in the United
States to possess a personal firearm."

Require all firearms be turned in to the government.


Do you think that would reduce the killings in this country?


Yup...

... and that's where we are heading unless the hard core 2nd Ammendment
clingers don't open their eyes and minds and become willing to discuss
and consider gun control laws that fit contemporary times. To continue
to say "nothing will work" and be satisfied with the status quo is
eventually going to force the issue.


Yup, we would just need to trim 4 or 5 amendments off of the Bill of
Rights.

Wasn't that one reason why we had the 2d amendment in the first place?


No.

On mass shootings... an answer
 

On 10/4/2015 3:42 PM, Califbill wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/4/2015 12:47 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:17:29 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

It's the Fretwell-Herring-W'hine-FlaTrash response, immortalized by the
Onion. "We can't do nuttin' about this, honey!"

I put my opinion about this and it was lost in the noise.

We should be teaching everyone to FIGHT BACK.
If everyone in that room scattered and immediately started throwing
everything they could pick up, at the shooter, he would be too busy
ducking to shoot and they could take him down.

There is no down side. The ONLY way he can kill them all is if they
stand there patiently and wait their turn.

One unarmed guy tried to "fight back" in the latest shootings and he got
shot 7 times. Fortunately he survived.

I think more lives are saved by following protocol ... meaning
people move into a secure area, lock the door, shut off the lights and
stay quiet.



Example?

Airline hijacking. We have not really had one since the passengers
figured out they can fight back. If they had have acted sooner, they
would have saved the plane in Pennsylvania
The leaky TSA process really has little to do with it. (97% failure
rate on their own test)
The fact that the hijacker will be beat to a bloody pulp does.
These days if someone just gets a little frisky, passengers take him
down.

The reason is the same, this is not a robbery where giving up some
money will save you. You have to understand the guy is there to kill
you and the only chance you have is to be a hard target.




And most of the nine killed, were asked their religion and then shot.
Might be better off fighting back. If you get shot, you are more likely to
survive, as he can not aim as well.



Yup. All those little kids at Sandy Hook shuda just thrown their copies
of "Dick, Jane and Sally" at the gunman.

This conversation is getting funny. A bunch of unarmed people are going
to ward off a guy with a large magazine, semi-automatic
by throwing books at him.

Boy, that will put terror in the heart of the next nutcase with a gun
who decides to make himself famous.

On mass shootings... an answer
 

On 10/4/15 4:12 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/4/2015 3:42 PM, Califbill wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/4/2015 12:47 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:17:29 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

It's the Fretwell-Herring-W'hine-FlaTrash response, immortalized by
the
Onion. "We can't do nuttin' about this, honey!"

I put my opinion about this and it was lost in the noise.

We should be teaching everyone to FIGHT BACK.
If everyone in that room scattered and immediately started throwing
everything they could pick up, at the shooter, he would be too busy
ducking to shoot and they could take him down.

There is no down side. The ONLY way he can kill them all is if they
stand there patiently and wait their turn.

One unarmed guy tried to "fight back" in the latest shootings and he got
shot 7 times. Fortunately he survived.

I think more lives are saved by following protocol ... meaning
people move into a secure area, lock the door, shut off the lights and
stay quiet.



Example?

Airline hijacking. We have not really had one since the passengers
figured out they can fight back. If they had have acted sooner, they
would have saved the plane in Pennsylvania
The leaky TSA process really has little to do with it. (97% failure
rate on their own test)
The fact that the hijacker will be beat to a bloody pulp does.
These days if someone just gets a little frisky, passengers take him
down.

The reason is the same, this is not a robbery where giving up some
money will save you. You have to understand the guy is there to kill
you and the only chance you have is to be a hard target.




And most of the nine killed, were asked their religion and then shot.
Might be better off fighting back. If you get shot, you are more
likely to
survive, as he can not aim as well.



Yup. All those little kids at Sandy Hook shuda just thrown their copies
of "Dick, Jane and Sally" at the gunman.

This conversation is getting funny. A bunch of unarmed people are going
to ward off a guy with a large magazine, semi-automatic
by throwing books at him.

Boy, that will put terror in the heart of the next nutcase with a gun
who decides to make himself famous.



It would be even worse if they were armed...imagine the carnage as they
miss the "perp" and start shooting each other and kids in the next
classroom...

On mass shootings... an answer
 

On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 16:12:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/4/2015 3:42 PM, Califbill wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/4/2015 12:47 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:17:29 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

It's the Fretwell-Herring-W'hine-FlaTrash response, immortalized by the
Onion. "We can't do nuttin' about this, honey!"

I put my opinion about this and it was lost in the noise.

We should be teaching everyone to FIGHT BACK.
If everyone in that room scattered and immediately started throwing
everything they could pick up, at the shooter, he would be too busy
ducking to shoot and they could take him down.

There is no down side. The ONLY way he can kill them all is if they
stand there patiently and wait their turn.

One unarmed guy tried to "fight back" in the latest shootings and he got
shot 7 times. Fortunately he survived.

I think more lives are saved by following protocol ... meaning
people move into a secure area, lock the door, shut off the lights and
stay quiet.



Example?

Airline hijacking. We have not really had one since the passengers
figured out they can fight back. If they had have acted sooner, they
would have saved the plane in Pennsylvania
The leaky TSA process really has little to do with it. (97% failure
rate on their own test)
The fact that the hijacker will be beat to a bloody pulp does.
These days if someone just gets a little frisky, passengers take him
down.

The reason is the same, this is not a robbery where giving up some
money will save you. You have to understand the guy is there to kill
you and the only chance you have is to be a hard target.




And most of the nine killed, were asked their religion and then shot.
Might be better off fighting back. If you get shot, you are more likely to
survive, as he can not aim as well.



Yup. All those little kids at Sandy Hook shuda just thrown their copies
of "Dick, Jane and Sally" at the gunman.

This conversation is getting funny. A bunch of unarmed people are going
to ward off a guy with a large magazine, semi-automatic
by throwing books at him.

Boy, that will put terror in the heart of the next nutcase with a gun
who decides to make himself famous.


Would the Massachusetts laws stop you if you decided to go off the deep end and shoot
a bunch of school kids? No.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!